record_trait

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds mild behavioral context by saying the category is 'validated' and recommending that evidence be cited in evidence_note or evidence_ids. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not disclose broader behaviors such as overwrite semantics, duplicate handling, or failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a short second paragraph for field-specific guidance. No sentence is wasted, and the structure makes the category constraint easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With seven parameters, zero schema description coverage, and many record-related sibling tools, this short description is not complete enough. It omits meaningful semantics for at least four parameters and provides no routing guidance among record_fact, record_observation, record_interaction, and remember. The output schema covers return values, but the input-side guidance remains insufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry most parameter meaning. It explains the category values and the role of evidence_note/evidence_ids, but it says nothing about person_id, value, confidence, or sensitivity. The required value parameter is especially underspecified, and confidence/sensitivity semantics are left entirely to the schema names and enum definitions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action and resource: 'Record a derived trait with validated category and provenance.' It goes beyond the bare name by specifying that the trait is derived and validated. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like record_fact and record_observation, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'derived trait' and the enumerated categories imply this tool is for recording trait-level conclusions rather than raw observations or interactions. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over record_fact, record_observation, or record_interaction, and no exclusions are stated. The usage context is present but only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.